Id. In Marron v. State, our sister court found that testimony that a car was stolen was relevant to show appellant's motivation for attempting to evade detention. No. 01-02-00601-CR, 2003 WL 1938210, *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 24, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). We likewise conclude that in this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Rios's testimony to show Allgood's motive in attempting to evade arrest or detention.
The evidence demonstrates that Valencia used the pick-up truck driven by Vasquez to flee police, a conclusion that is supported by the fact that once he exited the truck, Valencia continued to run away from police. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04(b)(1)(B) (providing that an actor need only use a vehicle to evade arrest, rather than be the driver of the vehicle); see also Jones v. State, No. 05-09-00114-CR, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 157, at **1-6 (Tex. App.-Dallas Jan. 12, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (affirming appellant's conviction for evading arrest, even though appellant was not the driver of the vehicle that fled from law enforcement); Marron v. State, No. 01-02-00601-CR, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 3581, at **9-11 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 24, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (same). We overrule Valencia's third issue.